Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

missbiggles1

Seabee42 wrote: »

So because "men" did it that makes discrimination okay? Or was it only okay because YOU gained.

The point that you're missing is that it wasn't arranged like that to advantage women but to advantage men.

Now times have changed, obviously equality in this matters and I've never said I'm against the changes even though I've been affected by them. However the speed of the 2011 changes was unfair to both women and men and I might well support some kind of campaign for this to have been done with more notice.

JezR

A lower pension age for women, in particular single women had been the major campaign for the National Spinsters' Pensions Association from 1935. They presented a petition with over a million signatures. They didn't quite achieve their aim as they wanted it brought down to 55.

mgdavid

Pollycat wrote: »

.........

Then in 2011, aged 58, I was advised that my SPA wouldn't be 63 years and 6 months but 64 years and 9 months.
It's this later change that many women think was too short notice.

so you had at least 5 years to work out and implement the best way to bridge a gap of 15 months; a combination of saving a bit extra and working a bit longer.
What solution did you come up with?
My suspicion is that too many stuck their head in the sand and did nothing.

Pollycat

mgdavid wrote: »

so you had at least 5 years to work out and implement the best way to bridge a gap of 15 months; a combination of saving a bit extra and working a bit longer.
What solution did you come up with?
My suspicion is that too many stuck their head in the sand and did nothing.

No sticking of head in sand here.

The 'saving a bit extra' and 'working a bit longer' boat had already sailed by the time the Goverment had decided to add 15 months onto my SPA - I'd retired.

mumps

p00hsticks wrote: »

Are there any figures to out there to substantiate your use of the word "many" here ?. Whilst even 1 would be unfortunate, WASPI would have us believe that pretty much every woman born in the 1950s has given up work prematurely either because they are caring or in poor health, and are on the breadline.

I know a number of FOI requests have been made to DWP as part of this campaign - does anyone know if any indicated how many in the affected age group are claiming Carers allowance and/or sickness or disability benefits such as ESA, DLA or PIP ?

If WASPI are exaggerating the number of women in this position, as I strongly suspect they are, then I think in many ways they are doing them a disservice, as providing some sort of assistance for a small number of women worst affected would stand much more chance of being achieved than the current WASPI demands that are simply too expensive for consideration.

I'm a 1953 baby, SRP age increased in 2011 by 18 months. I have recently retired, aged 62, as I have been a carer for nearly 25 years and just couldn't cope any more. I am now claiming CA, I could have claimed it 25 years ago, and will continue to claim it for another 2 years 6 months. It is less than half what my SRP is due to be. I have no idea how many other women are in my position but you do have 1 now.

mumps

mgdavid wrote: »

so you had at least 5 years to work out and implement the best way to bridge a gap of 15 months; a combination of saving a bit extra and working a bit longer.
What solution did you come up with?
My suspicion is that too many stuck their head in the sand and did nothing.

I was saving and planning so that I could still retire at 60 so had two years to save for an extra 18 months cover and didn't manage it. If only I had a crystal ball, I could have planned so much earlier.

BucksLady

Malthusian wrote: »

There do seem to be a curiously large number of these women who have selflessly sacrificed their work and their lives on the altar of their doddery parents, if you believe campaigns of this nature. I have never met any of them, or heard of a colleague who did so.

Never met any of them? My husband (a GP) has - every single day of the week.

t0rt0ise

mgdavid wrote: »

so you had at least 5 years to work out and implement the best way to bridge a gap of 15 months; a combination of saving a bit extra and working a bit longer.
What solution did you come up with?
My suspicion is that too many stuck their head in the sand and did nothing.

As I just posted on another thread, this is what happened to me..

What happened to me was that in 2009 because my state pension age was 64.5 years I left my full-time secure employment thinking that I could manage working part-time until retirement. Then my SPA was changed to 66 so I had to find full-time work again as my savings would not have seen me through. I was very lucky to eventually find another full-time job at my age and worked there for 18 months, giving up once again when it became too much healthwise. I have now been lucky enough to find part-time employment which will see me through (I am now 61).

So for me it has all worked out in the end but it could have been very different and for many finding employment at my age would be impossible. I think I have been very lucky but I do think of those who haven't.

mgdavid

Pollycat wrote: »

No sticking of head in sand here.

The 'saving a bit extra' and 'working a bit longer' boat had already sailed by the time the Goverment had decided to add 15 months onto my SPA - I'd retired.

So when you did your risk analysis prior to early retirement, what mitigation did you come up with in the event any of the rules changed?
Might the obvious one be to go back to work, like t0rt0ise above?

Teaandscones

Malthusian wrote: »

There do seem to be a curiously large number of these women who have selflessly sacrificed their work and their lives on the altar of their doddery parents, if you believe campaigns of this nature. I have never met any of them, or heard of a colleague who did so.

I know someone who quit their job to care for their nonagenarian parents. He isn't getting his state pension at 62 either.